Michael Vick Removed from Madden 08

Michael Vick moved down on the falcons dept chart in Madden 08 following todays roster update. This was a definitely a necessary action for EA to take and I am glad they did this.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
SmokeyMcBear3988d ago

so he is still in the game, I mean you can just adjust your depth chart and put him as the starter before an online, it would be different if they removed him entirely, or severly decreased his ratings, like what happens with an injury.

bym051d3988d ago

From a gaming standpoint, wouldn't you still want him to play? The computer character didn't kill dogs.

live3603988d ago

I think they should have taken him out all together

Vavoom3988d ago

At least make your title lead people to understand what really happened and NOT what you want to happen. It should read "EA move Michael Vick to 4th in the Falcons depth charts.

rogimusprime3987d ago

for what? Being indicted? What the f*ck happened to "due process". You people make me sick, always looking for some $hit to complain about. Like you REALLY give a damn about those poor pit bulls. I've never met a nice pit bull in my life. THEY ARE BRED TO FIGHT. There is no positive reason for pitbulls to be domesticated.

As for "ron mexico". Yes, he's an idiot, I'm not defending what he is ACCUSED of doing. But don't join the media in the witch hunt, you all know if he wasn't famous no one would give a damn about this case.

Why would you go out and buy Madden and waste your time on this forum, just play your damn game you spoiled fux

RyuCloudStrife3988d ago

Yes I'm glad too, he deserves it for being a jerk not only showing fans the middle finger saying "Mind your Falcon business", also putting dogs to fight and killing them or almost...

killercam193988d ago (Edited 3988d ago )

Leave Vick alone i dont see y its ok for people to fvck with bulls in a rodeo, stab bulls as a sport in some countries etc and no one says shlt we kill millions of chickens, pigs and cows everyday and no one says nething but someone makes their dogs fight and its the biggest thing in the world yea its wrong but u really need to stop making it such a personal issue, go worry about bigger issues happening in the world than someone damn dog

EDIT: @ gil i'm sure bulls enjoy being rode on at rodeos i'm sure thats what they would rather be doing instead of being on pasture eating grass n shlt keep looking at rodeos as being something thats ok for a romanpatrician atleast u took some time to understand what i was saying i'm against cruelty towards animals but i feel people need to look at all other things that are going on in animal cruelty and not just focus on Vick just cus hes a celeb

PS360PCROCKS3988d ago

You're obviously a complete and utter moron.

"i dont see y its ok for people to fvck with bulls in a rodeo, stab bulls as a sport in some countries etc"

*First off we ride bulls, not "fuvk with them"
*Other countries is the keyword here, we're talking U.S.A not other countries. Dog fighting = against the law.
*Fighting dogs is cruel, they're pet's not fighters.

"we kill millions of chickens, pigs and cows everyday and no one says nething"

*seriously? We kill them for food. food=survival. We don't make them fight. Co*k fighting also = illegal. Read the bible those are animals put here for FOOD.

Hopefully this gets through to you, but from your post it seems like logic is not part of your forte. Let's try this, you give me your dog and I will throw it into a ring and let people bet on if a pitbull can kill it or not. Deal?

Gil3988d ago

You idiot, bulls are ridden in a rodeo, not tortured and last time I checked bullfighting was illegal as well in the US. Livestock is killed for food, not sport. Many of these dogs die or are permanently disfigured. You do realize that they train these dogs by having them attack and kill smaller, defenseless dogs?

Vick should be locked in a room with some of these same dogs.

Last time I checked Kobe was exonerated. The b!tch lied about the rape. Don't compare him to that sorry FCK, Vick.

uxo223988d ago

I think all of you should hold judgement until after he has had a fair trial and has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. How the hell are you A$$es going to talk down on M. Vick and the only thing you know about his case is what you have seen on your damn TV between video games. You have no fact, just speculation, and last time I checked a person should not be convicted merely on speculation.

In India, they think Americans are senseless for eating cows, you know what that goes along with their beliefs and I can live with that. But, how can you guys living in America with a judicial system that says innocent until proven guilty talk sh!t like that about a man based on mere speculation. (At least until the trial is over.)

EA moved MV down on the depth charts because here is being suspended buy the NFL commissioner and therefore to match the falcons depth charts they updated the roster. It has nothing to do with his aledged crime. I can also bet you that some people, will pull him back into the starting lineup if they choose to use the falcons when playing madden. If you don't simply because of the alegations that are being held against him, the you're a bigger idiot that I thought, it only a damn game, one that you are trying to actually win in, not pass judgement in.

Some of you people never cease to amaze me with you prejudice
bullsh!t. Hopefully you won't get accused of something someday, and without giving you a chance some A$$hole is plugging up the chair for your execution.

Also, some vegan and vegetarians would beg to differ on the fact that we need to kill animals for survival. There are plenty of vegetables out there that are high on protein. That alone would get a disagree from some people.

Anyway, I see validity to all of you points, but this speculatory hate that has come out of some of your computer keyboards is sickening. andapaul88's comment was a bit insensitive, but there was some validity to it.

I know, I am going to receive some disagrees and negative responses for this comment, but go ahead I would expect nothing less.

romanpatrician3988d ago

I think we should consider andapual88's argument a bit more before we start making ad hominem attacks in order to disprove it.

From an ethical standpoint he seems to be on very solid footing. Consider: Kantian ethical philosophy is hierarchical, with a very clear delineation between God, Humans and Animals. The relationship that exists between each group determines plays a large part in determining the moral worth of the action.

For example, any human to human interaction can be judged ethically proper or improper because the participants inhibit the same level of rationality. However when actions occur in a vertical manner, i.e. interaction between humans and animals, the same moral systems that are deemed appropriate in the horizontal relationships do not apply. Thus while it is unethical for a human to murder another human it is not unethical for a human to kill an animal nor for a God to kill a human. They do not exist in the same sphere of rationality and their actions cannot be assigned an ethical worth because their levels of understanding are incomparable. What my look like an inappropriate act, i.e. the taking of a life, is not actually morally inappropriate when the taker of the life is a human and an animal is one dying.

All moral systems recognize this separation to some extend. No philosophies say thou shall not kill anything, period. And for obvious and good reasons.

Kant's system is particularly valuable when considering the Vic case because Kant does not like exceptions. His ethical philosophy is based around the idea that for an action to be acceptable it must be able to be done by all humans universially. This called the categorical imperative.

Those who have argued against andapaul88 seem to be making an exception for dogs that does not exist for other animals. That it is somehow ethically better for a human to eat a cow then it is for a human to force to dogs to fight each other. From a Kantian perspective no action commit by a human against an animal is ethically or morally inappropriate. To make it an issue of ethics is to bring the animal on to the level of the human and for him (and I happen to agree) that seems inappropriate as it is clear that humans and animal are different and different in a way that humans and other humans are not.

When put in this light, Andapaul88's point that a human should not be judged on his actions against an animal seem entirely appropriate. Why should society make an issue that is not ethical, i.e. not between to equals, into an ethical issue? To do so brings up the whole issue of making an exception based around subjective and emotional reasoning, which most philosophers consider as quite a poor thing to start an ethical philosophy around. It isn't done because it can't pass the test of making it universally applicable.

So, Andapaul88, I think you were absolutely correct in your belief that Vic's actions were ethically okay.

One further thing, those arguing against Andapaul88, brought up the matter of legalty and I want to address this. Vic's actions were illegal, but from an ethical standpoint that means very little because as we all know, laws vary from location to location and over time. In Germany during the second world war it was legal to persucute certain minorty, but as we know it was certainly unethical for them to do so. Ethics, however, and especially in Kantian philosophy, is not subjective to location, period of history or any other human factors. It is based around rationality and is timeless. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, I am more then happy to, but won't I discuss legality as it seems a very poor basis for morality.

360Sheep3988d ago

uh roman.. i think you are forgetting something.. we live in a society that names their pets, gives them doghouses, hell they even give them little outfits to wear around. This is a society that often treats animals on par or even better than the homeless human beings that you see when in a city. You had a nice little argument there quoting some things you learned in class, but you forgot one thing. Philosophy sucks.. woohoo.. yeah deep deal with it.

Vavoom3988d ago

"we live in a society that names their pets, gives them doghouses, hell they even give them little outfits to wear around. This is a society that often treats animals on par or even better than the homeless human beings that you see when in a city."

Do you no see a little something wrong with a society that treats it's animals on par or even better than humans. In lies the problem!

Roman made some excellent points, and perhaps we should open our minds enough to at least try and see other people's views for they will differ from your in some cases. Also remember, you at some point may be the odd man out, because of this, should you be discarded with your opinion. I think not.

The fact that someone would want to give broken bread to a pigeon while shewing away the homeless is a travisty.

One last thing for you, we also live in a society where a person is not considered GUILTY until proven so in a court of law. Stop judging people on such serious matters, unless of course you are a JUDGE, and even then at least consider the jury's verdict.

romanpatrician3988d ago


I'm glad you liked the argument. I did, however, address societies position on dogs when I discussed legality, which in our society is supposedly decided by the people. I am, however, much more interested in the ethical philosophy of vic's case then its legality.

And you should give philosophy a try, it can be quite fun to have a rational basis for your actions.

TheExecutive3988d ago (Edited 3988d ago )

hey roman, you are right about the categorical imperative- "So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as the principle giving universal law"... in other words if every single person acted as Vick did (if he actually did it) would and could it be considered moral? If anything Kant would consider it AMORAL. Thats right folks, Kant doesnt really deal with human to animal relations, he considers actions of that sort human----> animal as non-moral, or amoral. You want to know why? Because humans have practical reason for which to judge, animals do not. Bringing up Kant in this instance is completely unsound due to this fact. Animals are not considered moral beings and therefore cannot be put into his nice little system. However, dogs do feel pain, pleasure and the likes.

If you want to talk philosophy and our effects upon animals maybe he wouldnt be the best man to quote. Deontology is a bunch of horse sh!t anyway.


I agree with you its not acceptable to torchure animals and then have them fight for the hell of it. I find it morally and ethically wrong. I responded to the Kantian argument because not only did i take a class where he was our only subject but I also have a degree in philosophy. Using Kant to talk about human animal relations is completely irrelevant to our ethical standards of today.

PS360PCROCKS3988d ago

WHAT IN THE HELL!? How did that get taken so far out of context. I won't even read all your posts their practically mini novels. I started reading the first one and got to the "how can you accuse Vick before trial blah blah" um ok first off I never once used his name. I was talking ethics boys and girls. Laws are laws - bullfighting, co*kfighting, and dog dighting are and always will be illegal in the U.S. What other countries do is irrelevant to this situation. "So, Andapaul88, I think you were absolutely correct in your belief that Vic's actions were ethically okay." ethically ok? It's ethically ok to torture a creature to make it extremely vicious so it will get a ring and try to kill any other creature because that's how it was trained? All while a bunch of men can bet over it? If that's ethically ok, than you're morally retarded. Some of you make the most idiotic claims I have ever seen. Cows, Pigs and Chickens are food, don't spin it any other way. It's in the bible to be a hunter and use the animals for food, don't bullsh!t around that fact. No where in the bible does it say "It's ethically ok to torture creatures" gimme a break and don't pull out some "kant ethics" sh!t on me. This is about being a human and the fact of the matter is torturing things is plain WRONG. Killing certain animals to eat is NOT wrong.

romanpatrician3988d ago (Edited 3988d ago )


The fact that Kant considers the human/animal interaction outside ethics is the very reason why his philosophy should be used to consider Vic's situation, particularly when people are arguing for an ethical judgement of a human based on his treatment of an animal.


The problem that I have with your argument is that there is no consistency to your stance. Animals can be killed as long as its not cruel? Or animals can be treated cruelly as long as you eat them? Or as long as you don't profit from animal 'cruelty' then its okay to kill them?

The consistency and rationality of Kant's ethical system when considering animals is what makes it so personally attractive.

TheExecutive3988d ago

I see your point. However, I still must disagree with you that it is an acceptable philosophy to look at when dealing with human/animal relations. Back when he was writing he didnt know how animals think, we have learned way too much since then. Technology has improved and we understand so much more about animals then they did back then. To use this philosopy in todays world and talk about how it should be applied in this instance may be doing both this topic and Kant a great disservice.

romanpatrician3988d ago


I don't think applying Kant to today's world is doing a disservice to anyone. Sartre didn't seem to think there was a problem with it when he smuggled it into existentialism is a humanism.

However, as you are someone who obviously thinks there is an ethical problem with dog fighting I am interested in your reasoning behind such a stance and would gladly turn this discussion away from Kant if you wanted to present an alternative ethical position.

PS360PCROCKS3988d ago


My stance comes from a biblical and governmental one. The government says it's wrong to have animals fight, therefore it's illegal. Not only is it illegal it's entirely unethical and immoral and just plain mean. My biblical stance comes from the fact that animals were placed here by god to be food. By what your all saying is that since it's wrong to make animals fight, than it should also be wrong to eat them? It's unethical and immoral to make them fight, it's not unethical or immoral to merely use your resources to survive. Basic point is that they torture those dogs, we use those animals for survival. Yes we DON'T have to eat meat, but the bible says I should hunt and eat them as that's what they're their for.

pilotpistolpete3988d ago

Sorry if I took the wind out of this conversation, but it had to be done.

romanpatrician3988d ago


I'm glad you clarified. I respect the divine command theory of ethics and have no interest in dissuading you from having a philosophy and standing by it.

However, if you are going to use the bible to defend your position on animal cruelty I suggest you also read what it has to say about how humans should treat humans and then compare that with your stance on animal cruelty and see if they are compatible.

Gorgon3987d ago

kant didn't know [email protected] about zoology and etology. His philosofical positions are only relevant from an historical standpoint. Thats why science advances and so our vision on the world. Maybe some people here likes to TRY to show off some knowledge, but bringing Kant is completely irrelevant. You could as well have pulled that off your [email protected]

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 3987d ago
Show all comments (55)
The story is too old to be commented.